Talk:Trollhättan school stabbing

Chain of events

Can somebody put together the chain of events?

The Guardian says that Pettersson was posing with children, who were warned to flee by Eskandar. The Mail (in general less reliable) says that by the time he was posing for the photograph, he was already stained with the assistant's blood, and the 41-year-old teacher told the children to flee. Were there two posings, or is the chain of events still hazy?

I know that the details are utterly horrible, but we need to make the chronology clear. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The article also doesn't mention how the perpetrator died - suicide, by the police? GiantSnowman 12:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

GiantSnowman: It was in the lead, but I do realise that the narrative looked incomplete without the addition in the main. Thanks for pointing it out. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Speculative

No Swedish sources mention the "I am you father"-bit. All that is mentioned in Swedish articles are that when he entered the school, he posed with two kids who thought he looked like Darth Vader. Mentioned by the police is that the clothing indicates "hate-crime" (which by the helmet would mean WW2 Germany look a like). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.138.229 (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

If he even attended a church in his life he would be branded Christian killer on this website with the word Christian posted about 18 times, but because you are all a bunch of leftist fascists you fail to mention the Pentagram and black clothes he wore during the killing or the fact that he was active in Satanic/Atheist communities. Very convenient. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/10/23/17/2DB545D900000578-3285883-image-a-106_1445619123660.jpg

Labeling as "terrorism"

Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization and/or individual a terrorist—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term. If this is indeed an act of terrorism, then I think we can do better than finding a listing in a "book on terrorism". Elizium23 (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope. Not on Wikipedia - we use the term when appropriate.104.169.21.247 (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not appropriate until it is widely supported by WP:RS Elizium23 (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Headwear misrepresentation

Even though the media did not report it in that way (accidentally or politically motivated at the time), the helmet is more similar to the Stahlhelm, worn by the Germans in WW I and II. This headwear worn by the terrorist would make more sense, because it aligns with the far-right nature of the attack. I would be glad to make an edit, but I am not sure how to source this? 80.112.128.46 (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean that the current text "Pettersson entered the school in a German World War II helmet..." is politically motivated suppression of facts? What do you propose that we replace it with? Sjö (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Similar cases listing

The Ikea Attack was not racially motivated, so why is it listed as similar because if it? --95.193.129.173 (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The attacker was targetting white people specifically but his motive was not racism, maybe it should be removed as a similiar case? Salutations25 (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trollhättan school attack/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 01:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this. I fixed one blatant citation problem just now. May take me a few days. From a preliminary look I'm a bit worried about the phrasing/breadth of coverage in this article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Significant issues relating to grammar: not unfixable, though. For example there are punctuation/flow issues just in the lead.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No big issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No big issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Most sources seem good, but I have questions about the reliability of Ekurd Daily and Rudaw, Though they aren't listed explicitly as unreliable or dubious sources anywhere I can see, and the articles seem solid, so they might be fine. I didn't check this completely (in light of the other issues), but there are a few issues here. The statement about the teacher dying several weeks later (and his actions) needs a citation The last statement in the article, about Eslov, needs a citation The whole background section needs more citations, could be expanded
	2c. it contains no original research.	From a cursory look, not an issue, though I didn't look too deep into it given the more pressing issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Significant issues (78% similarity) found from Earwig [[1]]. I am an idiot and did not use the "from page links" part of Earwig. I think this is plagiarizing 'from' Wiki, oops. From page is completely fine
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	From a cursory overview there seems to be quite a lot of relevant information in this article that could be included, that isn't. From checking the Swedish article there appears to be more information (from the book that is mentioned in the article) that is left out. Generally whatever the contents of the book are would be highly useful in expanding this article - though it likely would be difficult if you are not Swedish. I also managed to find an English language study that contains significant information on the perpetrator and the attack at large, some of which is relevant enough to be in the article. This is from a cursory search, so there may be more information. Overall it seems like this article needs to be expanded, which is probably an issue not easily fixable in this review.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No big issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No big issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No big issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Adequate rationale provided - though I have questions over if it fulfills the biographical part, it seems fine to me.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The mask seems to be a big part of the coverage of the event, seems relevant. Maybe it should be placed in the perpetrator section, but that's just a suggestion.
	7. Overall assessment.	Not ready for GA status without significant work on the scope that exceeds the scope of this review.